W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2001

Re: Issues list update/status?

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 11:34:23 +0100
Message-ID: <3BB4522F.5050707@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

This is all great stuff, and I'm grateful.  The issues list
is not as uptodate as I'd like and needs some attention.

Dan Connolly wrote:

> (rather than to report its status), CHANGE THE SUBJECT]

And if I may humbly add, follow Dan's example and create
a new thread (i.e. don't reply)


> But now that we have some drafts out, I've
> been looking at the issues list to see how
> many of them are addressed by our drafts...
> or how many of them at least have a clear
> home in one of the drafts...

Good point.  DaveB has been suggesting we assign issues to the
docs too.  What I had in mind to do was to ask the editors to
say which ones they felt would be covered by their docs and then
see what overlap/underlap their might be.  Looks like you've given
us a start.

However, I do think we have a process issue to resolve which you
brought up earlier around what docs we are aiming to have.

> Starting with the "Currently Active Issues"
>      rdfms-not-id-and-resource-attr: The propertyElt production 6.12
>      of the grammar does not allow both an ID attribute and a resource
>      attribute to be specified (owner Dave Beckett) 
> This clearly should be addressed by the syntax spec.
> I suggest adding an appendix to the syntax spec
> (among others) that enumerates issues addressed by
> the spec, with a pointer into the issues list
> and a pointer to the section of the spec that addresses it.
> Hmm... this issue isn't mentioned in "2.3. Approved Test Cases"
> in the test cases spec.
> I thought we had resolved this one, but I don't
> see any evidence that we have (though I haven't checked
> the meeing records).

Err, that might be why its under currently open issues.

> Dave? What's the status of this?
>      rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about: What is the difference
>      between using an rdf:ID attribute to 'create' a new resource and an
>      rdf:about attribute to refer to it? (Aaron Swartz) 
> This is done, right? 


> There's a test case in the testing WD;
> it was marked "unapproved" but we approved it recently,
> no? Hmm... maybe that was something else we approved.
> There's a "Resolution" section in
> http://www.w3.org/2000/10/rdf-tests/rdfcore/rdfms-difference-between-ID-and-about/
> but it doesn't provide any evidence that the WG made
> that resolution. Also, I would quibble with the
> "URI-encoded form of" language.
> The test cases address this issue to my satisfaction,
> but perhaps this issue should stay open until the syntax
> spec has a formal description of how to convert RDF/xml
> syntax to n-triples.
> Aaron?
>      rdf-terminologicus: The RDF community needs a precise
>      terminology to enable it to discuss issues.(Martyn Horner) 
> I don't see how we could consider this closed until all our
> work is done. I double-checked the issue summary to see
> if the folks who raised it had something less than
> all-the-worlds-problems in mind, but they don't.
> I suggest taking this off the front-burner (i.e. the
> "currently active" list). Or maybe it'll get significant
> attention in the context of the primer.

That's a good idea.  With the decision to fold Martyn's work into
the primer that seems a reasonable thing to do.  Martyn - you ok with

>      rdfms-identity-anon-resources: What URI, if any, identifies an
>      anonymous resource? (Graham Klyne) 
> I suggest this is addressed by the model theory spec.
> I propose to close it during tomorrow's
>   "3: Congratulate Pat on the publication of the Model Theory WD"
> item.

I hope you are right that we can close this one.  I felt we needed to
await Sergey's return before putting it on the agenda.

I'm a wee bit nervous making sure we are procedurally correct in closing
such an issue which has been so controversial and this was not on the
agenda for this week.  Can I suggest we action Graham, the issue owner,
to propose formal resolution at the next telecon.  And when its passed
we all heave a collective sigh of relief :)

>      rdfms-graph: Formal description of the properties of an RDF
>      graph. 
> This seems to have a home in the model theory spec, but
> given the feedback from Peter et. al., I don't suppose
> we've adequately addressed it.

No - but we've made enormous progress :)

> How did it get on the active list without an owner, I wonder?

I guess I put it there, probably because it was clearly active and
no-one volunteered to own it.  Pat - can we put your name against it?

> It seems intimately related to
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-syntax-incomplete
> That issue is under "Postponed" in the issues list, but
> I can't find any evidence of a WG decision to postpone it.

On a quick look neither can I.  My fault.  I will find
the decision or restore it for consideration.  Can you tell from
the CVS diffs when it got moved to postponed - that will help
narrow the search.  Shame I can't put log entries in through
jigedit.  Maybe I should follow Dave's example and include a formal
record of changes in the text - it just would be nice to have
machine support.

> I've been asked, in our Semantic Web Advanced Development
> discussions, to take a particular position on this one.
> I haven't made up my mind yet, but I suppose should
> send my thoughts to the WG in any case.
>      rdfms-xmllang: Why isn't xml:lang information represented within
>      the RDF data model? 
> Hmm... no owner. It clearly seems to fit in the syntax
> spec, though. Mr. Chair, please either recruit an owner
> (maybe the editor(s) of the syntax spec?) or take
> it off the active list.

My bad again :(  I was trying to push this forward myself hoping
someone would take pity on me pick it up.  In effect I think Jeremy
and Bill have with their work on literals.  Jeremy/Bill - I merge this
issue with rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure?

>      rdfms-literals-as-resources: Consider replacing literals with
>      resources whose URI uses the data: URI scheme. 
> This seems to belong in the model theory pile, along with
> rdfms-graph.
>      rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure : A literal containing XML markup is
>      not a simple string, but is an XML structure. 
> Jeremy seems to be leading the charge on a related topic
> (2001-09-07#5 Literals); I'd like it if he'd explicitly
> address this issue in his proposal.
> Brian, how did this get on the active list without an owner?
> Any suggestion about its status?

Jeremy is the owner.  He and Bill dehOra have, in my view been doing
a great job moving this forward.

>      rdfs-domain-and-range: Should a property be allowed more than
>      one rdfs:range property? What should the semantics of multiple
>      domain and range properties be? (Dan Brickley) 
> This is all over but the crying. I suggest the chairs
> move this to the "closed" section, with pointers to
> whatever supporting materials are relevant (i.e. decision
> record, test cases...)

Yup - we have a whole host of closures/updates from the f2f on
schema which are not reflected in the issues list.  I was maybe
hoping Danbri would do these - but as he's real busy - I'll do it.

> Oops... do we have test cases for this one? Danbri?
>      rdfs-domain-unconstrained: The rdfs:domain and rdfs:range
>      constraints for rdfs:domain are missing from the RDF Schema for
>      RDF Schema (Dan Brickley) 
> status, Danbri?
>      rdfms-uri-substructure: xmlns, uri+name pairs or just uris..?
>      Clarification needed (Sergey Melnik) 
>      rdfs-no-cycles-in-subClassOf: Cycles of subClassOf properties are
>      prohibited (Frank Manola) 
> I suggest the chairs find the test cases and close this one too.

Yup - hopefully do subPropertyOf today and I can close that one off.

> ]]]
> By the way... is anybody working on an RDF version of
> the issues list? (say... scraped from
> the HTML one?)

I'm putting issue list management into Jema - but if someone could give me
a scraped version of the current issues list that would be wonderful.

Received on Tuesday, 2 October 2001 17:19:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:05 UTC